Among those arrested alongside the coal miners was Van Jones, who recently joined United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts and Green for All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins in a powerful joint statement, arguing that Patriot’s bankruptcy “appears to be part of a cynical plot by Peabody and Arch—a scheme choreographed to maximize profits at the expense of their own workers.”

But Peabody couldn’t escape the protests by moving its meeting to Wyoming; a group of UMW members rallied outside, and they were joined by Peabody shareholders affiliated with Powder River Basin Resource Council, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), CO-FORCE (Coloradans for Fair Rates and Clean Energy), and Forgotten People from Black Mesa/Big Mountain in Arizona. Three activists were arrested, including one who dropped a banner that said, “Peabody Attacks: Pensions, Diné Lands, Climate,” highlighting the carbon pollution unlocked by Peabody’s coal mines, the company’s shameful treatment of retired mine workers, and the impacts of Peabody’s Black Mesa, Arizona strip mine on the health, land, and water resources of the Diné (Navajo) People.

A MORE activist drops a banner at Peabody’s annual meeting, April 29 2013. Photo courtesy of Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment

Peabody’s strip mines in Wyoming are also damaging creeks and aquifers. LJ Turner, a Wyoming rancher who lives near the North Rochelle Mine said, “Peabody’s chickens have come home to roost. For too long, Peabody has ignored the true cost of its coal mines in the Powder River Basin, but now Congress and others are starting to pay attention to the impacts of mining on people, our air and land, and the climate.”

Hear more from LJ Turner in this video produced by Earthfix, part of their ‘Voices of Coal’ series:

Peabody denies that moving its annual meeting to Wyoming was about avoiding scrutiny, insisting instead it was ”to show off its largest properties, including the North Antelope Rochelle mine,” and as Peabody’s press release states, to tout the company’s “leading position in the largest and lowest-cost U.S. coal region.”

So why are costs so low at Powder River Basin mines like Peabody’s North Antelope Rochelle?

Well, North Antelope Rochelle is a massive strip mine operation, the largest coal mine in the United States with 108 million short tons extracted last year. Like all of its coal mines in the Powder River Basin, workers at the mine are not represented by a union (Peabody sees union representation at its mines as a threat, warning in its annual report for investors, “If some or all of our current non-union operations were to become unionized, we could incur an increased risk of work stoppages, reduced productivity and higher labor costs.”)

Another major reason: Peabody is taking advantage of the absurdly cheap prices for publicly owned coal offered by the Bureau of Land Management’s corrupt coal leasing program. When it was originally leased in 1992, North Rochelle Antelope coal went for just 21 cents a ton. Last year, Peabody was able to expand this massive mine by adding the North Porcupine and South Porcupine tracts, paying just $1.10 and $1.11 a ton respectively. BLM explicitly justified its decision to lease those coal tracts because it claimed doing so would help “meet the national coal demand.” Yet Peabody executives are quite clear about their plans to export Powder River Basin coal abroad – a Peabody Vice President told the Casper Star Tribune that at Monday’s meeting, “company representatives planned to tell shareholders of the upside of potential plans to export coal around the globe.”

That “upside” is presumably Peabody’s desperate hope that it can stop losing money by selling more coal to Asian markets – if it can beat the broad and growing opposition to coal export proposals in the Pacific Northwest. In the “downsides” column for coal exports we might include mile-long coal trains disrupting communities and local economies, health impacts from coal dust and diesel pollution, threats to sensitive ecosystems and important fisheries, infringement on tribal rights, and enormous amounts of carbon pollution.

So that’s Peabody: cheating workers out of the health care they were promised, and then dismissing their protests by declaring the matter “will be decided in bankruptcy court, not the court of public opinion.” Leasing coal owned by US taxpayers for around $1 a ton so it can strip mine it and ship it to Asia. Destroying aquifers used by Wyoming ranchers and Navajo People, and then refusing to even listen to their concerns. And all to extract coal that will end up polluting our air and water, dumping carbon pollution into our atmosphere, and acidifying our oceans.

It’s not hard to see why Peabody executives would try to hide their shareholder meeting in Wyoming; “the court of public opinion” is just a threat to their business model. A more important question is how long Peabody’s operations, and those of the rest of the coal mining industry, can continue to withstand the increased public scrutiny it is facing from citizens, journalists, and elected officials. Recent front page stories in the Seattle Times and Los Angeles Times show the impacts of coal mining in Montana, and how ranchers are fighting back against the industry’s coal export proposals. The federal coal leasing program is under three federal investigations, while the list of public officials calling for a comprehensive review of coal export proposals grows longer each month. And in recent weeks, over 135,000 people have joined the call for a moratorium on federal coal leasing, following a letter sent to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell on her first day on the job by the leaders of several environmental, health, consumer rights, and community organizations.

In other words, if the coal industry “require darkness” to pursue its plans for increased coal exports and leasing, let’s shine some more light.

The Arkansas Attorney General has promised an investigation, but with Exxon running the show, many questions about the spill remain unanswered for now. We asked Rick Steiner, an oil spill expert who has helped communities and regulators hold oil companies responsible since the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, for some important questions to try and get to the bottom of this most recent Exxon spill. Here are Steiner’s suggestions:

1. Why did this pipeline rupture happen?

2. When was the last time Exxon or the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) inspected the pipeline segment in question?

3. What exactly were the results of the most recent inspection?

4. Exactly when did the leak detection system send an alarm?

5. How long after the leak detection alarm did it take Exxon to shut down the flow through? It is inexcusable that 10,000+ barrels came out without the flow being suspended.

6. When was the pipeline last pigged? (Pipeline Inspection Gauge = PIG)

7. What was the last maintenance on this segment of the pipeline, e.g., replacement?

8. Dilbit pipelines run much hotter, and thus have more corrosion, and thus have 2-3 times the failure rate of normal crude pipelines. What additional design factors were incorporated into the Pegasus pipeline to accommodate this added risk?

9. Exactly which tar sands crude mixture was in the pipe?

10. Is an environmental damage assessment currently being conducted?

11. What amount of oil has been collected in the cleanup?

12. Is Exxon prepared to pay local property owners for their losses, and to cover all cleanup costs?

13. How can the US public trust Exxon in operating a safe pipeline with tar sands oil in it?

14. Given Exxon’s professed commitment to the highest standards for its global oil production and transportation operations, how could this possibly happen, right under the watchful eye of Exxon management and federal regulators?

A dead American Coot covered in oil lies among leaves and branches near the Bell Slough Wildlife Management Area near Mayflower, Arkansas April 2, 2013.

It’s not a good time to be a coal industry executive in the US. Last year, wind power made up nearly half of all new installed electricity generation, and domestic coal use is on the decline year after year. With dimming prospects at home, companies are in a race to export US coal to foreign markets. Some of the coal companies pushing to export US coal are relatively well known, especially for their long history of environmental and labor abuses - think Peabody and Arch. But until now, little has been known about Ambre Energy, the Australian company pushing two of the controversial coal export terminals in Washington and Oregon. A new report from the Sightline Institute, “Ambre Energy: Caveat Investor” digs deep into the inner workings and shaky footing of this startup – and for the communities and investors weighing Ambre’s promises, the results are not pretty. The report details the many challenges facing Ambre in its aspirations of becoming a true planet-destroying coal titan.

In a letter to Senators Wyden and Murkowski, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar promised that DOI’s Inspector General will “aggressively pursue any company found in violation of the laws and regulations related to the valuation of Federal coal.”

This internal investigation follows another investigation currently underway at DOI focused on the coal leasing program run by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Without proper oversight, sham “auctions” run by BLM have allowed coal companies to secure taxpayer-owned coal for around $1 per ton. According to a report by Tom Sanzillo of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, this has amounted to a $28.9 billion subsidy over the last 30 years. In addition to DOI’s internal review, the BLM’s coal leasing program is also under review by the General Accounting Office.

It appears that coal companies are trying to bilk taxpayers at every available opportunity, and so far our federal regulators seem to have been asleep at the wheel. Hopefully these investigations signal that they are starting to wake up. After all, there are some pretty aggressive drivers out there – here’s how a spokesperson for one of the coal companies tried to defend their approach: “In my neighborhood, I don’t stop at every block. I could. But that’s not where the stop signs are. You can say you don’t like the regulations, but we play by the rules.”

With the US coal industry desperately seeking shortcuts, we need more vigilance at the Department of Interior – and probably a few more stop signs.

Woman: “Do you still think the rising of the seas is funny?”

Romney: “I never imagined such a thing is funny.”

Man: “Is climate change still a joke to you?”

Romney: “As a matter of fact, if you’d like to — I know you’re filming — if you’d like to see my view on global warming, I wrote a book, and there’s a chapter on global warming and you’ll see what I think we can do to deal with it.”

Man: “What are you going to do to address global warming?”

This confrontation marks the fifth time in two days that Romney has been questioned about climate change. On Thursday, a protester interrupted Romney during a speech in Virginia Beach, shouting “Romney! What about climate? That’s what caused this monster storm! Climate change!” Also yesterday, student activists asked Romney about his plan to address climate change at three different campaign stops, in Roanoke, Doswell, and Virginia Beach, VA. Romney dodged the question each time, referring the voters to his book.

Despite Governor Romney and President Obama’s reluctance to address climate change during the presidential campaign, Hurricane Sandy and Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s endorsement of President Obama has renewed attention to the impacts of climate change on the United States, and the candidates’ plans to address the crisis.

In addition to a warming atmosphere and oceans that are loading storms with more energy and rainfall, global warming is raising sea levels and increasing the damage from storm surge and coastal flooding. A US Geological Survey report found that sea levels are rising three to four times faster on the Atlantic Coast than globally, putting several major US cities at greater risk.

Oil is washing up along the Gulf Coast in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, churned up by Hurricane Isaac. After discovering hundreds of tar balls at Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama, a Greenpeace research team joined our allies at the Gulf Restoration Network to investigate the impacts on East and West Ship Island, off the coast of Mississippi. We found tar balls on East Ship Island and several heavily oiled areas on West Ship Island, which are both part of the Gulf National Seashore.

Oil and reeds washed up by Hurricane Isaac on West Ship Island, Miss., Sept. 4, 2012.

Meanwhile, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that Louisiana is “closing a 12-mile section of Gulf coastline from Caminada Pass to Pass Fourchon after Hurricane Isaac washed up large areas of oil and tar balls at the location of one of the worst inundations of BP oil during the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 … agency crews surveying damage from Isaac discovered large sections of viscous oil and tar balls floating along the coast.”

Greenpeace researcher Jesse Coleman takes samples of oil washed up by Hurricane Isaac on West Ship Island.

Greenpeace documented oil on East Ship Island in October 2010, months after the BP oil disaster. Returning two years later to find so much oil pollution is a sad reminder that it’s impossible to clean up a major marine oil spill. Officials are concerned that up to 1 million barrels of oil are estimated to remain in the Gulf of Mexico, and are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to explain how they will address oil pollution remaining from the 2010 spill.

Oil washed up by Hurricane Isaac contaminates water on West Ship Island.

It’s clear that the impacts will be felt for years on the Gulf Coast, and the risk of such a disaster exists wherever our coasts are open to offshore oil drilling.

Our national parks have been called “America’s best idea,” and Americans are proud of the special places we have protected for the inspiration and enjoyment of current and future generations. But protected areas from Florida to Alaska face new challenges on a warming planet, and melting sea ice means that a newly vulnerable area — the Arctic — is increasingly threatened by offshore oil drilling and industrial fishing. Protecting the Arctic is emerging as one of the great environmental challenges of our age — so what lessons can we learn from earlier generations who came together and won protection for the parks, sanctuaries, and wildlife refuges that we enjoy today?

As we were making final preparations for our Save the Arctic tour in Alaska, some of the crew from the Greenpeace ship Esperanza had a chance to visit Kenai Fjords National Park, a wild and protected area in southern Alaska where the coastline is punctuated by extraordinary glaciers that empty into a sea dominated by humpback whales, seabirds, orcas, and seals.

The effects of climate change are impossible to ignore here, as these enormous glaciers melt and retreat back to the coast. Researchers here in 1909 observed and photographed Northwestern Glacier extending 10 miles into the sea. A century later, we find this glacier has retreated back so far that today it barely reaches the sea. Alaska has warmed twice as quickly as the rest of the United States, and this melting has accelerated in recent years.

Northwestern Glacier’s retreat has accelerated, and now it barely reaches the sea.

While the impacts of climate change are particularly dramatic here in Alaska, there’s trouble for national parks and other protected areas across the United States. In many Western parks like Rocky Mountain National Park, pine forests are being decimated by the mountain pine beetle that thrives in warmer winters. In Florida, coral reefs in Biscayne Bay and the Dry Tortugas are being destroyed by warming and acidifying oceans, while sea level rise threatens low-lying areas like the Everglades. Glacier National Park may not have any glaciers left at all by 2030. The list goes on — for more, see the National Parks Conservation Association’s report, “Unnatural Disaster: Global Warming and Our National Parks.”

Here at Kenai Fjords, tidewater glaciers play an important role in the ecosystem, and the accelerated retreat of these giant rivers of ice will have impacts beyond the melting ice. Just like other rivers, the areas where these glaciers meet the sea are extremely productive estuaries where freshwater and saltwater meet, and nutrients mix. As these frozen rivers retreat and in some cases no longer reach the sea, researchers are studying the impacts to the marine ecosystem and the wildlife that depend upon it.

A harbor seal and her pups on ice broken off of Northwestern Glacier, Kenai Fjords.

The far-reaching impacts of climate change challenge our very notions of protecting unique places, and the director of the National Park Service has said that “climate change is fundamentally the greatest threat to the integrity of our national parks that we have ever experienced.” At the same time, protected areas like national parks and wildlife refuges offer some of the best opportunities for scientists studying how climate change is impacting plants, animals, and ecosystems — and what the future may hold. And of course, the habitats protected by parks, wildlife refuges, and reserves are more important than ever for species struggling to survive in a changing climate.

Our expedition is headed now toward the Arctic, one of the last untouched and pristine places on our planet — and one uniquely threatened by climate change. It’s a place where melting sea ice doesn’t just impact habitats, it is the habitat for animals like polar bears and walruses. The quickly melting Arctic presents extraordinary challenges for the people and animals who call it home, and today it is also important for scientists studying what climate change means for all life in Earth. Like the special places we take pride in protecting for future generations, the Arctic needs protection from industrial exploitation.

Oil companies like Shell see the melting ice as an invitation to drill for oil, and there’s little doubt that industry would have destroyed places like Yosemite and the Grand Canyon as soon as it could if earlier generations hadn’t fought to protect those special places. This fight to save the Arctic will be different in some ways — the high Arctic region around the North Pole doesn’t belong to any nation, so the movement to protect the Arctic must be global. But like those earlier efforts, we’ll need the power of people to challenge some of the biggest corporations in the world.

The BLM lets Peabody lease public land for next to nothing and strip-mine it for coal.

On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to hold an “auction” for 721 million tons of taxpayer-owned coal in the Powder River Basin.

This is for the North Porcupine tract, and like the South Porcupine tract that BLM leased to Peabody last month — even though this coal is owned by you and me — the lease was drawn up by Peabody itself for its own profit. This is what’s known as a “lease by application,” and under BLM’s corrupt coal-leasing program, Peabody will almost certainly be the only bidder and pay next to nothing.

WildEarth Guardians’ 2009 report “UnderMining the Climate” [PDF] found that over the last 20 years, only three of 21 lease by applications had more than one bidder. Since Peabody knows it will face no competitive pressure, it can simply offer the lowest possible price, secure in the knowledge that if it doesn’t meet BLM’s absurdly low minimum price, it can just try again later. In fact, that’s just what happened with the South Porcupine tract; Peabody’s initial offer of just $0.90 per ton was rejected as too low by the BLM — so they simply held another auction a few weeks later and accepted Peabody’s offer of $1.11 per ton. In both “auctions” Peabody was the only bidder.

Now, the company is once again seeking cheap access to more of our coal, so it can strip-mine it from public lands and export it to lucrative markets in Asia.

Incredibly, BLM’s coal-leasing program deliberately encourages this uncompetitive process. Allowing lease by applications was a key change made possible once the BLM moved to decertify the Powder River Basin as a coal-producing region — even though it’s the source of almost half the coal mined in the U.S. BLM is supposed to manage this coal “in the best interests of the nation,” and it has a process meant to determine the fair market value of a lease. But as Tom Sanzillo explains [PDF], the BLM’s methods dramatically undervalue the coal, so much so that it has amounted to a $28.9 billion subsidy over the last 30 years.

It’s clear that the BLM’s coal-leasing program is deliberately designed to benefit a few coal mining companies like Peabody and Arch at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. This has become even more outrageous now that coal mining companies are seeking to dramatically expand exports of this taxpayer-owned coal. And that’s why Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has called [PDF] for a Government Accountability Office examination of the BLM’s coal-leasing practices.

Beyond the lost revenue, however, BLM’s undervaluing of this coal is helping fuel the devastating impacts to public health, the environment, and our climate system that inevitably accompany mining and burning this much coal. The BLM is facing a lawsuit from WildEarth Guardians and the Sierra Club because it ignores the impacts of the greenhouse gases that will result from leasing this coal.

And the amount of carbon pollution that will be emitted when this coal is burned is enormous.

The 721 million tons of coal contained in Thursday’s South Porcupine lease amounts to 1,196,456,240 metric tons of CO2 — just over a billion metric tons, or a gigaton of CO2. That’s over 10 times the 101 million metric tons of CO2 that the federal government hopes to reduce its own emissions over a decade-long period under President Obama’s executive order. Despite the fact that the emissions from burning this coal would not be possible without the BLM’s leasing activities, the government does not include emissions associated with federal leasing of coal, oil, and gas in its inventory of federal emissions.

We can also make sense of the vast amount of carbon pollution we’re talking about here with the help of the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator. The emissions from the 721 million tons of coal in the South Porcupine is equivalent to the annual emissions of over 234 million passenger cars — that’s nearly all the cars in the U.S. Another way of measuring this coal — especially important for those in the Pacific Northwest resisting the industry’s efforts to ship it through their communities for export to Asia — is that 721 million tons of coal is enough to fill 6.5 million train cars.

The BLM’s corrupt coal-leasing program is fueling climate change with billions of tons of carbon pollution, and it’s been a rip-off for U.S. taxpayers for decades. If the BLM proceeds with the auction of the North Porcupine tract Thursday, they can expect to be confronted by protesters. How long does the industry think it can keep this boondoggle going as it seeks to turn the American West into a resource colony?